Being adamant about not providing info. when asked

[dstryr]

Link Removed

 

[bikerbill]

I obey the law. If the law says I must surrender my CHL to any officer who asks, I'll do it. But it doesn't, so I will resist as best I can. The law, as bizarre is it often is, is what separates us from the beasts. If I have to obey it, so do those who enforce it. If they have no right to ask, I have a moral duty to say no. This is (well, it used to be) a free country. The only way it will stay that way is if we protect the rights we have; that includes obedience to the law (or the willingness to take the consequences; don't do the crime if you can't do the time) and the refusal to obey the whims of LEOs who don't take the time to learn them or decide they can do what they want, laws be damned.

 

[croute]

I'm seeing some excellent points in here and now see both sides of the story. The comments brought up another question for me: are you legally obligated to stop and talk to the officer in the first place? IE: you're open carrying and a cop wants to stop you and talk to you. Why not ignore him/her and just keep walking? Or, if you must stop legally, why even open your mouth to say anything at all? I truly don't know the answer to this.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Actually, they always have the right to ASK. Anybody has the right to ASK. The question is, what do they do when you refuse? Depending on state law, in most states, they have no authority or right to DEMAND. But you will never know if they will obey the limits of their authority until you say no their request (asking).

I'm seeing some excellent points in here and now see both sides of the story. The comments brought up another question for me: are you legally obligated to stop and talk to the officer in the first place? IE: you're open carrying and a cop wants to stop you and talk to you. Why not ignore him/her and just keep walking? Or, if you must stop legally, why even open your mouth to say anything at all? I truly don't know the answer to this.

Depends on state law. In most states, unless the officer is demanding that you stop, you are free to just ignore them. However, and I will get flamed for this, but I don't care, I will always at least stop for the officer. I don't consider it an intrusion of my rights to stop and ask, "Are you detaining me?" I was approached by officers in a shopping mall. They way it went down I didn't really have time to ask "are you detaining me" because they started the talking. They told me the mall was private property (true), that the mall was posted with no firearms (I found out later, true, in very small type in the middle of a code of conduct sign), but if I would just cover my gun nobody would care. I covered my gun and thanked them and that was the end of it. Unfortunately, what does suck about Washington State law was that after I concealed my gun in front of them, they would have had the legal ability to demand my CPL and I would, by law, have to produce it. Driver's license or ID, no...but CPL, yes. But they never asked for it and I didn't offer.

The officers in the mall are examples of the difference between remaining in the bounds of authority and abusing their authority. They did not do anything that any other Joe Shopper or Susie Cashier could have done. All they did was inform me of mall policy. They didn't even order me or tell me I had to cover my gun, they stated the facts and let me decide what to do.

 

[Bikenut]

I'm seeing some excellent points in here and now see both sides of the story. The comments brought up another question for me: are you legally obligated to stop and talk to the officer in the first place? IE: you're open carrying and a cop wants to stop you and talk to you. Why not ignore him/her and just keep walking? Or, if you must stop legally, why even open your mouth to say anything at all? I truly don't know the answer to this.

I'm going to stick to just Michigan simply because those are the laws I'm familiar with..........

In Michigan there is no requirement to present ID ... unless "stopped" while engaging in an activity that requires some sort of permit... such as driving needs a driver's license, concealed carry needs a concealed carry permit, and open carry in some areas also needs a concealed license (odd but there it is).

The important part is..... "stopped"... and in order to be "stopped" an officer MUST have a reasonable articulable suspicion that a crime was committed or is about to be committed... or probable cause that a crime actually is happening... or witness a crime.

With the exception of if an officer simply requests to see a concealed carry permit (when a person accepts the permit they also agree to the law that says when they are carrying concealed they must present such permit upon request of LE) ... however... if a person is not "stopped" then there is no requirement to provide ID.

In fact, in Michigan, it is perfectly legal to open carry (where open carry without that concealed carry license oddity is legal) and not have any ID on your person at all. None... zip... no ID of any kind. And when an officer asks for ID he is out of luck unless he decides to arrest and take you downtown to ascertain your identity. But to do that he has to have at the very least.. reasonable suspicion of some crime... and not having ID is NOT a crime.

So... if not officially "stopped" a person does not even have to respond to an officer in any way. You don't have to talk to him (why would anyone run their mouth to a cop who is looking for an excuse to arrest you?) at all. But... first it is necessary to ascertain if you are being "stopped" or "detained" so... an example of a scenario would go like this....

Officer: "Hello. Could I speak to you for a moment?"

You: "Am I being detained?"

Officer: "No. I just want to ask you some questions."

You: "If I am not being detained then I am free to go. Correct?"

Officer: "You are free to go but I want to ask you some questions."

You: "I do not wish to answer any questions. Have a nice day."
And walk away.

But ... it is wise to first discover if the officer is actually "stopping" or "detaining" you before walking off. And if he IS "stopping" or "detaining" you... well... you decide how you want to handle that but personally I would cooperate as much as I am legally required to... and I'd be very careful what I said and what questions decided to answer or I simply ignored and didn't answer IF I answered any questions at all.. because just as they are recording me in case I am breaking the law.... I am recording them in case they break the law.

 

[Billy_B]

Bike Nut you stated your point well. What I particulary noted was how and when you choose to pick your battles. You also use good comon sence along with knowledge to get what you want. I really doubt that you would ever get to a point where you were in contempt of cop, either right or wrong.

 

[croute]

Hey guys, thanks for clearing that up for me. Very informative. I admit I have very little knowledge of the law. Now I completely understand your point of view.

 

[Rich_S]

Again, you appear EAGER to submit to ILLEGITIMATE authority.

Not so much. I'm eager to choose my battles and know when you're better off going one way vs. the other. A cop isn't going to stop asking for ID or a firearms license because some people refuse to produce them.

 

[Bikenut]

Hey guys, thanks for clearing that up for me. Very informative. I admit I have very little knowledge of the law. Now I completely understand your point of view.

Please allow me to strongly suggest never taking what someone posts on the internet as being actually factual... but that it would be wise to take it upon yourself to search on the 'net for your own particular State's firearm laws and start reading for yourself.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Not so much. I'm eager to choose my battles and know when you're better off going one way vs. the other. A cop isn't going to stop asking for ID or a firearms license because some people refuse to produce them.

B.S. You can't possibly know when I am better off going one way vs. the other. Quit trying to tell me (and everyone else) that you know what is best for us. It is a whole lot easier for me to prove in court that the officer unlawfully detained me if I don't voluntarily submit to everything he asks me to do. And THAT is a HUGE and legitimate reason to not comply with every polite request I might receive from a police officer.

 

[Bikenut]

Not so much. I'm eager to choose my battles and know when you're better off going one way vs. the other. A cop isn't going to stop asking for ID or a firearms license because some people refuse to produce them.

The cop can ask... a cop can ask anything they wish... that isn't what is important. What is important is for people to understand the concept that just because a cop asks doesn't mean they have to comply... unless legally required to do so.

A general comment not directed at any individuals follows....

Something else that is important...

It is not up to someone else to try to tell other people what battles they should, or shouldn't, choose to get involved in just because they personally don't think that battle is worth fighting.

If I personally don't think a battle is worth fighting ... I don't get into the battle. But I won't tell someone else they shouldn't get into that battle just because I don't want to.

 

[kwimby]

Internet Tough Guy Meets Web Forum Wako

Unfortunately, what does suck about Washington State law was that after I concealed my gun in front of them, they would have had the legal ability to demand my CPL and I would, by law, have to produce it. Driver's license or ID, no...but CPL, yes.

Yet earlier in the thread you cite WA state law absent things like support for random DUI checkpoints in support of your inalienable rights. Do you not distinguish the difference between being asked to show a DL or a CCW? Do you even read this stuff you type before you hit the reply button?

 

[NavyLCDR]

Yet earlier in the thread you cite WA state law absent things like support for random DUI checkpoints in support of your inalienable rights. Do you not distinguish the difference between being asked to show a DL or a CCW? Do you even read this stuff you type before you hit the reply button?

You, sir, are posting words that would indicate that you are an idiot.

Revised Code of Washington:

RCW 9.41.050: Carrying firearms.

RCW 9.41.050
Carrying firearms.
(1)(a) Except in the person's place of abode or fixed place of business, a person shall not carry a pistol concealed on his or her person without a license to carry a concealed pistol.
(b) Every licensee shall have his or her concealed pistol license in his or her immediate possession at all times that he or she is required by this section to have a concealed pistol license and shall display the same upon demand to any police officer or to any other person when and if required by law to do so. Any violation of this subsection (1)(b) shall be a class 1 civil infraction under chapter 7.80 RCW and shall be punished accordingly pursuant to chapter 7.80 RCW and the infraction rules for courts of limited jurisdiction.

1. Completely 100% different set of circumstances than a DUI checkpoint.
2. The statute only requires me to show my CPL. It does not require me to show a driver's license or other ID card.

I read what I write before I post it. I also read state law before I post about it.

Our protection from DUI checkpoints comes from the Washington State Constitution, which offers greater protection than the US Constitution 4th Amendment:

http://www.leg.wa.gov/LAWSANDAGENCYRULES/Pages/constitution.aspx

SECTION 7 INVASION OF PRIVATE AFFAIRS OR HOME PROHIBITED. No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law.

There is no authority in Washington State Law for DUI checkpoints. Therefore, police stopping persons for the sole purpose of checking for DUI, when there is no reasonable suspicion, is disturbing a person in their private affairs and is banned until such time as the legislature writes a law, such as the CPL law, which gives police the authority to conduct such checkpoints.

Have a nice day.

 

[CharlesMorrison]

It means that not all rights are written in simple terms or even written at all. Most rights are defined by SCOTUS thru many case's and hidden opinions that can and are applied to enforce rights that are not obivious. Keep drinking the kool-aid that the elected, keep giving you, keep on trusting that they know the law, when in fact all they want to do is controll you and me so that we remain, go along get along endentured servants under color of law. They want you to keep your mind occupied with anything that keeps you from the truth of what they are doing. Since you have been conditioned since birth to believe they know best and never question authority, you are a slave and not free.

Well... Driving is not a right that is protected by the constitution, sorry you just don't get it.
Keep smoking your crack and believe whatever inane junk you wish to.
Thank god you are not a lawyer as you are clueless about what a "Right" is.

 

[Flanmedic51]

Step away from the computer...get a job.

Holy shizz, this thread is still alive? Do any of you hold down jobs?

 

[Deanimator]

Not so much. I'm eager to choose my battles and know when you're better off going one way vs. the other. A cop isn't going to stop asking for ID or a firearms license because some people refuse to produce them.

He'll stop DEMANDING it unlawfully when the city (and the individual cops) get sued enough.

He's free to ask.

I'm free to refuse, and I will.

 

[CharlesMorrison]

It means that not all rights are written in simple terms or even written at all. Most rights are defined by SCOTUS thru many case's and hidden opinions that can and are applied to enforce rights that are not obivious. Keep drinking the kool-aid that the elected, keep giving you, keep on trusting that they know the law, when in fact all they want to do is controll you and me so that we remain, go along get along endentured servants under color of law. They want you to keep your mind occupied with anything that keeps you from the truth of what they are doing. Since you have been conditioned since birth to believe they know best and never question authority, you are a slave and not free.

Do us all a favor and post a link to this "hidden right" and then I will give it a rest. I have read the Constitution and Bill of Rights and can find nothing to substantiate your claim.

(edit) I will admit up front that sometimes I am not the sharpest tool in the shed. I need to read some things more than once to make it "stick" so bear with me.

 

[NavyLCDR]

However, in Washington state, random checks for driver's license and equipment checks are authorized for the Washington State Patrol only:

RCW 46.64.070
Stopping motor vehicles for driver's license check, vehicle inspection and test — authorized — powers additional.
To carry out the purpose of RCW 46.64.060 and 46.64.070, officers of the Washington state patrol are hereby empowered during daylight hours and while using plainly marked state patrol vehicles to require the driver of any motor vehicle being operated on any highway of this state to stop and display his or her driver's license and/or to submit the motor vehicle being driven by such person to an inspection and test to ascertain whether such vehicle complies with the minimum equipment requirements prescribed by chapter 46.37 RCW, as now or hereafter amended. No criminal citation shall be issued for a period of ten days after giving a warning ticket pointing out the defect.

DUI and insurance are not included in the authority for a random stop. I have never seen a checkpoint in Washington for license or equipment checks.

In Washington, this is when I am required to identify myself to an officer, when not operating a motor vehicle:

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=7.80.060

RCW 7.80.060
Person receiving notice — identification and detention.
A person who is to receive a notice of civil infraction under RCW 7.80.050 is required to identify himself or herself to the enforcement officer by giving his or her name, address, and date of birth. Upon the request of the officer, the person shall produce reasonable identification, including a driver's license or identicard.
A person who is unable or unwilling to reasonably identify himself or herself to an enforcement officer may be detained for a period of time not longer than is reasonably necessary to identify the person for purposes of issuing a civil infraction.

It says nothing about having to identify myself just because I am stopped and detained. I only have to identify myself when the officer is actually going to issue a citation.

 

[CharlesMorrison]

This video is a fantastic display as to why you should NEVER talk to the cops!
It's rather long but worth every second if you value your rights!

 

[kwimby]

I wouldn't be so proud of that WA state law, if I were you. Looks like it's screwed up enough to let them get away with just about anything they want under whatever pretext they choose.